For our critical analysis of a wikipedia article, I chose to look at the wikipedia article for the quipus that we had discussed in class last week.

Upon first glance the article seems well written and contains plenty of sources in the reference section. The most eye catching part of the page, though, is the incredibly brief section on the etymology.  Personally, I believe this piece of information could have been placed in the introduction or in another section.  Some paragraphs on the “Purpose” are missing sources despite being an important part of the information given.  As for the rest of the page, in terms of sources, almost every paragraph contains at least one citation.  There still exists a few paragraph that needs citation involving the literary uses of the quipu as well as the common spelling issue an English.  This stems from the fact that there are many ways people spell quipu, but according to the discussion of the page, wikipedia uses the most common name, which a user noted was “quipu”. Overall, aside from the few problems I believe the article is well written and contains plenty of sources and citations.